Is there really such a thing as agnosticism? - Atheist Nexus2018-03-19T15:00:06Zhttp://atheistnexus.org/forum/topics/is-there-really-such-a-thing?id=2182797%3ATopic%3A638157&feed=yes&xn_auth=noryan;
you are the last guy I…tag:atheistnexus.org,2010-05-05:2182797:Comment:8152982010-05-05T22:14:01.356ZAsa Watcherhttp://atheistnexus.org/profile/AsaWatcher
<b>ryan</b>;<br />
you are the <u>last</u> guy I want to disagree with, but when you write:<br />
***"<i>faith is belief in something for which there is evidence to the contrary</i>."<br />
I am of a different notion.<br />
<br />
If you maintain “there is evidence to the contrary”, then you would have to be prepared to assert that evidence, and I’m not sure how effective trying to prove a negative has <u>ever</u> been.<br />
<br />
That, and I’m not sure that there is any compelling evidence that god(s) does not exist.<br />
<br />
However, I…
<b>ryan</b>;<br />
you are the <u>last</u> guy I want to disagree with, but when you write:<br />
***"<i>faith is belief in something for which there is evidence to the contrary</i>."<br />
I am of a different notion.<br />
<br />
If you maintain “there is evidence to the contrary”, then you would have to be prepared to assert that evidence, and I’m not sure how effective trying to prove a negative has <u>ever</u> been.<br />
<br />
That, and I’m not sure that there is any compelling evidence that god(s) does not exist.<br />
<br />
However, I like <u>your</u> definition of atheism<br />
<i>"Atheism is the absence of faith"</i><br />
<u>better</u> than the one I offered, which was:<br />
“<i>atheism is the absence of faith in a supreme being</i>”.<br />
<br />
I am attracted to the more <u>inclusive</u> nature of your definition, as it aims us down the path to “deep atheism”, which I haven’t seen discussed yet here at A/N. I don't think atheists should…tag:atheistnexus.org,2010-05-05:2182797:Comment:8152172010-05-05T21:07:43.961ZAbnormalhttp://atheistnexus.org/profile/Dave665
I don't think atheists should be bothered with trying to convert agnostics to atheism. Also Agnosticism is more about belief v. Knowledge than faith v. belief.
I don't think atheists should be bothered with trying to convert agnostics to atheism. Also Agnosticism is more about belief v. Knowledge than faith v. belief. "Atheism is the absence of fa…tag:atheistnexus.org,2010-05-05:2182797:Comment:8149852010-05-05T17:02:08.144Zryan cameronhttp://atheistnexus.org/profile/ryancameron
"Atheism is the absence of faith" is right on. That is the point I've been trying to make, where faith is belief in something for which there is evidence to the contrary. The stronger the evidence to the contrary, the stronger the faith required to be convinced. By this definition, faith has no place among athiests, because it is the exact opposite.
"Atheism is the absence of faith" is right on. That is the point I've been trying to make, where faith is belief in something for which there is evidence to the contrary. The stronger the evidence to the contrary, the stronger the faith required to be convinced. By this definition, faith has no place among athiests, because it is the exact opposite. Dear Asa Watcher,
I apologiz…tag:atheistnexus.org,2009-12-12:2182797:Comment:6453492009-12-12T18:43:55.917ZAndrew Lafonthttp://atheistnexus.org/profile/AndrewLafont
Dear Asa Watcher,<br />
<br />
I apologize for what I had written in response to you stating that Atheism is passive.<br />
<br />
I take my Atheism very seriously, and I get tickked off when someone insults it. I live deep in the bible belt, South Florida, and I need to be a hard nose, else everyone will walk over me.<br />
<br />
That being said.<br />
<br />
<i>"You, and people like you, Andrew, are the source of the religious right’s accusation that “atheism is a religion”. You keep exhibiting the same level of evangelical faith in the…</i>
Dear Asa Watcher,<br />
<br />
I apologize for what I had written in response to you stating that Atheism is passive.<br />
<br />
I take my Atheism very seriously, and I get tickked off when someone insults it. I live deep in the bible belt, South Florida, and I need to be a hard nose, else everyone will walk over me.<br />
<br />
That being said.<br />
<br />
<i>"You, and people like you, Andrew, are the source of the religious right’s accusation that “atheism is a religion”. You keep exhibiting the same level of evangelical faith in the corollary of theism as the faithful themselves demonstrate in the vigorous promotion of their own visions of reality.<br />
Stop it.<br />
Arguing about god’s existence is the shadow theater."</i><br />
<br />
No, I am going to continue to debate about God's existance, or lack there of. I have already lost faith for I am no longer a 'Theist'. I will stick to my guns, becasue that is what I believe, and not you or anyone else can change that.<br />
<br />
What I have seen on these forums is that 'Atheist Nexus' can be called 'Conversions R Us'. This is all it is, one side trying to convert the other. I am guilty of it, you are guilty and everyone here is guilty of it. Also along with most of the 'Theists' out there as well. Don't try to convert me, and I will not convert you Asa Watcher!<br />
<br />
All I do is just state the facts, and let others decide 'Yea or Nea'<br />
<br />
Viva Atheism The inevitable divergence of…tag:atheistnexus.org,2009-12-12:2182797:Comment:6446632009-12-12T04:52:19.721ZDavehttp://atheistnexus.org/profile/Dave34
The inevitable divergence of opinion about what constitutes atheism and what contitutes agnosticism seems sometimes to reflect an assumption that it all has to do with private, even solipsistic, cognitive activity rather than recognising that it can have a great deal to do with acting in the world. In many ways, agnosticism seems reasonable as an epistemic stance. It says, in my understanding, that a statement like 'God exists' is a challenge to the possibility of knowing, and that in that…
The inevitable divergence of opinion about what constitutes atheism and what contitutes agnosticism seems sometimes to reflect an assumption that it all has to do with private, even solipsistic, cognitive activity rather than recognising that it can have a great deal to do with acting in the world. In many ways, agnosticism seems reasonable as an epistemic stance. It says, in my understanding, that a statement like 'God exists' is a challenge to the possibility of knowing, and that in that light the truth or falsity of the statement is unknowable or undecidable. However, there are many circumstances for many people in many cultural traditions where one is sometimes obliged to act <i>as if</i> the proposition were true of false, and that appears to invite a decision in the form of a probabilistic judgment about the likehlihood of the truth or falsity of the statement. Since I am an actor in the world, I find it more coherent to say that I'm an atheist. Yes Jacob, I think you got it…tag:atheistnexus.org,2009-12-12:2182797:Comment:6444972009-12-12T01:47:07.532ZAsa Watcherhttp://atheistnexus.org/profile/AsaWatcher
Yes <b>Jacob</b>, I think you got it. Thanks.<br />
I thought the idea was a pretty simple one, and was surprised at some of the responses in opposition.<br />
I liked your observation:<br />
<i>"Any good argument must start with first principles. That is so as to establish what the hell the argument is actually about. It seems to me from reading this whole thread that no one is really on the same page."</i><br />
<br />
Yea, but that’s ok. I’ve taken a new perspective on agnosticism,<br />
Found a web site with a subject we…
Yes <b>Jacob</b>, I think you got it. Thanks.<br />
I thought the idea was a pretty simple one, and was surprised at some of the responses in opposition.<br />
I liked your observation:<br />
<i>"Any good argument must start with first principles. That is so as to establish what the hell the argument is actually about. It seems to me from reading this whole thread that no one is really on the same page."</i><br />
<br />
Yea, but that’s ok. I’ve taken a new perspective on agnosticism,<br />
Found a web site with a subject we might discuss in the future:<br />
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_atheism" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_atheism</a><br />
enjoyed a discussion<br />
got insulted<br />
was offered an opportunity to exercise patience<br />
and got to practice writing.<br />
<br />
SOOooooo what do you think about agnosticism? Andrew responds to my post:
“…tag:atheistnexus.org,2009-12-12:2182797:Comment:6444672009-12-12T01:19:33.860ZAsa Watcherhttp://atheistnexus.org/profile/AsaWatcher
<b>Andrew</b> responds to my post:<br />
<i>“Atheism does not mean 'Amoral', in fact how did you assert that Atheism has anything to do with morality?”</i><br />
I didn’t. I was speaking of the prefix “A”. Placing an “A” in front of the word theism is <b>LIKE</b> placing an “A” in front of the word moral.<br />
I shouldn’t have to explain that. I was quite clear. Please go back and read the sentence.<br />
When you wrote above:<br />
<i>"Those strong in 'Theism' created 'Faith' to control the weaker of the pack.<br />
Yes, as I…</i>
<b>Andrew</b> responds to my post:<br />
<i>“Atheism does not mean 'Amoral', in fact how did you assert that Atheism has anything to do with morality?”</i><br />
I didn’t. I was speaking of the prefix “A”. Placing an “A” in front of the word theism is <b>LIKE</b> placing an “A” in front of the word moral.<br />
I shouldn’t have to explain that. I was quite clear. Please go back and read the sentence.<br />
When you wrote above:<br />
<i>"Those strong in 'Theism' created 'Faith' to control the weaker of the pack.<br />
Yes, as I stated earlier, 'Faith' is a construct of 'Theism'."</i><br />
<br />
My apologies for not catching your error earlier. You have it bassackward, <b>Andrew</b>. The cornerstone of theism’s foundation is faith. Faith is the foundation upon which theism is built, and institutionalized as “religion”, which you describe as “to control the weaker of the pack.”<br />
If there are two interchangeable terms in our discussion it might be religion and theism. (but that’s for a different discussion)<br />
Suffice it to say, faith generates theism <u>not</u> vica versa.<br />
<br />
I hope you appreciate irony, <b>Andrew</b>. Especially when you write things like:<br />
<i>"There is no God! Show me physical proof in the existence of God!"</i><br />
Nobody can do that Andrew. Any more than you can show physical proof in the <u>non</u> existence of God. You are a passenger on the faith train as much as the theist. You, and people like you, Andrew, are the source of the religious right’s accusation that “atheism is a religion”. You keep exhibiting the same level of evangelical faith in the corollary of theism as the faithful themselves demonstrate in the vigorous promotion of their own visions of reality.<br />
Stop it.<br />
Arguing about god’s existence is the shadow theater.<br />
<br />
Abandon faith. Abandon it in all things.<br />
<br />
And your aggression neither disproves atheism’s inherent passivity, nor threatens my atheism:<br />
<i>You think Atheism is passive, then how about this: You, Asa Watcher, you are the sorriest excuse for an Atheist! You do not even rank near agnosticism! No, you are a 'Theist' in the guise of an agnostic, singing the praise of 'Faith'; a construct of 'Theism'! 'Faith' = 'Theism'. How's that? Is that 'Passive' enough for you?</i><br />
<br />
I usually don’t respond to insulting people, and if you persist in the above manner won’t again. My suggestion is for you to read through all the posts on this subject, since you obviously feel so strongly about it.<br />
There are some clever and thoughtful posts from several people in this particular forum, and they have contributed to a better understanding on my part about the subject of agnosticism, yet, I must admit, when it comes to agnosticism I’m still a skeptic. I don't think its about stand…tag:atheistnexus.org,2009-12-11:2182797:Comment:6439062009-12-11T19:01:15.653ZAtheist Busthttp://atheistnexus.org/profile/AtheistBust
I don't think its about standards of evidence. The evidence is abundant, there is no influence on the laws of physics (not physical interactions, but the laws themselves) from any source. Trying to take the argument anywhere else simply brings religion (or bad reasoning?) into the equation, this is why I like agnosticism -- you don't try to answer questions that are irrelevant (well, to oneself anyway).
I don't think its about standards of evidence. The evidence is abundant, there is no influence on the laws of physics (not physical interactions, but the laws themselves) from any source. Trying to take the argument anywhere else simply brings religion (or bad reasoning?) into the equation, this is why I like agnosticism -- you don't try to answer questions that are irrelevant (well, to oneself anyway). Asa: But I do disagree with:…tag:atheistnexus.org,2009-12-11:2182797:Comment:6433362009-12-11T09:33:38.066ZJaumehttp://atheistnexus.org/profile/Jaume
<b>Asa</b>: <i>But I do disagree with: " you can't possibly consider the existence of a god without some degree of faith"<br />
You don't necessarily have to have faith to recognize it or its object.</i><br />
<br />
It's precisely (and only) in this context (the definition of agnosticism) that I said "the <u>part</u> about faith is irrelevant". I thought it was obvious (or I wouldn't have quoted the definition in the first place).
<b>Asa</b>: <i>But I do disagree with: " you can't possibly consider the existence of a god without some degree of faith"<br />
You don't necessarily have to have faith to recognize it or its object.</i><br />
<br />
It's precisely (and only) in this context (the definition of agnosticism) that I said "the <u>part</u> about faith is irrelevant". I thought it was obvious (or I wouldn't have quoted the definition in the first place). Hey Asa,
I'm with you. I bel…tag:atheistnexus.org,2009-12-11:2182797:Comment:6427622009-12-11T02:01:59.351ZJacob Gladdenhttp://atheistnexus.org/profile/JacobGladden
Hey Asa,<br />
<br />
I'm with you. I believe that there is a difference between the words <b>faith</b> and <b>belief</b>. Otherwise why would we have two words? English words are all about shades of meaning often derived from context as much as definition. <b>How</b> you use a word is just as important as <b>when</b> you use one. I would like to point out that 'faith' is always used in a context of 'belief in something unknowable'. People often use the word belief in a similar manner as 'faith' such as "I…
Hey Asa,<br />
<br />
I'm with you. I believe that there is a difference between the words <b>faith</b> and <b>belief</b>. Otherwise why would we have two words? English words are all about shades of meaning often derived from context as much as definition. <b>How</b> you use a word is just as important as <b>when</b> you use one. I would like to point out that 'faith' is always used in a context of 'belief in something unknowable'. People often use the word belief in a similar manner as 'faith' such as "I believe in gnomes." Used in that context the word belief means faith. To sort it all out, think about the two words. I'm deliberately not going to check the dictionary before I define those two words here.<br />
<br />
<br />
Belief - Accepting the existence of a thing or concept. "I believe in air"<br />
<br />
Faith- Accepting the existence of a thing or concept without evidence. ie. Belief in a thing or concept <i>without evidence</i>. "I believe in aliens even though I have no proof."<br />
<br />
<br />
You can have belief without faith but not the other way around. Faith is a particular form of belief. It has specific conditions; <i>without evidence</i>. Belief has nothing to do with evidence one way or the other it is simply a concept to describe knowledge of a thing without subjective, direct experience of the thing. Belief is a self describing concept. So is the term faith. Faith as a concept is specific in the way that in order to have faith in the first place you have to know that you have no evidence.<br />
<br />
<br />
Any good argument must start with first principles. That is so as to establish what the hell the argument is actually about. It seems to me from reading this whole thread that no one is really on the same page.<br />
<br />
Asa is starting from the assumption that the words belief and faith are fundamentally different enough to have two separate definitions. If that assumption is correct (which means other people agree with it) then Asa's point that agnosticism about 'god' is unachievable because 'belief in god' requires faith because there is no evidence.<br />
<br />
At some point the definitions of terms must be agreed on in order to have intelligent conversation. Ideas are built like houses on the foundations of understood and accepted concepts. Always start a conversation with strangers with first principles stated in the most basic terms.<br />
<br />
I believe the beauty of the English language is that any concept can be boiled down with one or more words to have specific meanings when used in context.